LOOKS LIKE KERRY, followed by Dean, with Edwards third and Clark fourth. This would seem to bode poorly for Clark's prospects; Dean and Edwards can try to pull a first-place in South Carolina, but where's Clark? Ahead of Lieberman. (LATER: Now the word is that he's ahead of Edwards, after all).
UPDATE: (NOTE that comments are open on this post, at least until they fill up with trolls or penis spam. I know it's nothing important, like cookware, but if you've got anything to add, here's your chance.)
The Jeff Jarvis summary: "Kerry is winning. Dean's 'temperament' is hurting him. Dean and Edwards are running in the others' tails. Lieberman is off-camera. Clark keeps the oxygen tent, running head-to-head with Edwards."
Matthew Yglesias: "It's interesting how much in the dubious 'momentum' sweepstakes hangs on whether John Edwards finishes third or fourth even though we know for sure that neither he nor Clark will win any delegates either way."
Will Saletan: "[M]aybe Democrats should ask what they're getting in Kerry. After watching him for a year and seeing him work New Hampshire, here's my warning: You're getting a guy who has plenty of selling points but can't make the sale himself."
Jacob T. Levy: "But the odd truth about the New Hampshire primary is that it doesn't pick Presidents anymore. It doesn't even pick nominees. What it does is put a good scare into the eventual nominee."
David Adesnik: "My guess is that the subtleties of the Edwards-Clark finish won't matter much, since both are depending on a strong showing in the South."
Chip Griffin: "The Kerry team really has beautifully orchestrated this. The Curtain Cam shot on CNN all this time, waiting for Kerry, is priceless."
Hugh Hewitt: "Dr. Dean is welcome to be my co-host any or all days from now until the 2nd." I'd take that offer!
Kos: "Dean has enough money to limp on, but by all indications, he's through. . . . Watch the establishment rally around Kerry to end this thing as quickly as possible. "
Jack O'Toole: "It's been almost half a century since the Democratic party has elected a president without a Southern accent. Is that just an electoral fluke? Or does it tell us something important about what it takes for Democrats to win national elections?"
Dave Cullen: "A sizeable plurality would love to have Howard Dean as their president, but they're convinced that they're alone, so they have to vote for someone else that they think will appeal to other people."
Wonkette: "This is our punishment for publishing exit polls. Kerry by double digits! And still Dean's grimacing that spooky rictus. How much would Dean have to lose by for him to call it a loss?"
Donna Brazile: "I think Edwards is the sleeper. . . . More and more, people are looking at him now as the alternative to Kerry."
Atrios: "I think people who are writing Dean's obituary yet again are dead wrong. . . . How long before Clinton won his first primary in 1992? Who was the presumed nominee at this point? A certain Senator from Mass. if I remember correctly."
Roger Simon: "It's still bad news for those of us who wanted to see Edwards get a shot, but at least Kerry won't have to pretend he's Dean."
John Ellis: "Back to Sunday's script! Where did they leave that? Probably at the hotel!"
Armed Liberal: "I'm impressed that Dean could mount such a strong comeback ... but then he gets up and makes his speech."
Andrew Sullivan: "Dean gave arguments. Kerry spoke in packaged Shrumisms. Dean has a vision. Kerry has ambition. If I were a Democrat, I'd vote for Dean over Kerry in a heartbeat."
Donald Sensing: "Among 'military households' (not further defined), Kerry got 35 percent, Dean 26, Clark 15 and Edwards 13 percent. So Kerry the lieutenant pulls more than twice the vote of Clark the general. General, you've just been further demoted."
Oliver Willis: "Huge win for Kerry. Dean's only around still because he has money, but he may push things down to the wire. Edwards may suddenly be vulnerable in South Carolina. Dead: Clark (had NH to himself and has squat to show for it), Lieberman, Kucinich, Sharpton (all three DOA)."
Kevin Drum: "Presumably Lieberman will now drop out, and for Clark and Edwards the next two weeks in the South and Midwest are make or break."
Josh Marshall: "Dean said that New Hampshire had 'allowed our camp to regain its momentum' and that 'we did what we needed to do tonight.' And I think thatís right. But just barely. I think they're in desperate shape. And I think they know it."
NOTE: Some people say the comments aren't working for them. I closed 'em and reopened 'em in the hopes it would help. I had a server outage earlier, and things are still a bit slow on my end, so that may be the problem; beats me. I hope they work now. They're obviously working for some people.
MORE: People want to know what I think. I pretty much agree with Atrios, actually, at least on how hard this stuff is to predict -- at this point in 1992 I thought Clinton was toast. That shows what my predictive ability is like.
With that said, here's one more: People are still talking (see the comments, and this Jeff Jarvis post) about a "brokered convention." Although it would be a political junkie's dream, it won't happen. This'll be settled in not much more than a month. And probably sooner.
Meanwhile, if you're already looking ahead to South Carolina, I've got some useful links over at GlennReynolds.com.
And comments are closed now. Sorry -- otherwise I'll forget and they'll fill up with crap when I'm not paying attention. Very interesting stuff, though! Sorry to those who had problems posting.
posted at 08:26 PM by Glenn Reynolds
My preditions were almost dead on. I had Edwards just ahead of Clark and right now it looks like Clark will finish just ahead of Edwards.
Either way, you can expect a lot of people to claim victory, but the momentum is still with Kerry and Edwards. Dean has the money to withstand another defeat. Clark has no excuse. He skipped Iowa. Why such a poor finish? Guess it doesn't pay to be a Republican in a Democratic primary.
2nd Post! Clark is NOT going to get the nomination. That's my prediction
Posted by: tinfoilhat at January 27, 2004 10:38 PM
I'm surprised by Clark's showing there.
My only other comment is that ABC News cut into Jeopardy! (here on the west coast) for a lame update RIGHT BEFORE revealing the third contestant's answer and wager. AAAARRRGH! Peter Jennings has just made several enemies.
Posted by: Sean M. at January 27, 2004 10:41 PM
I think it will be much later in the Primaries before anybody knows who will win.
Posted by: mr. lawson at January 27, 2004 10:43 PM
Strong momentum for Kerry, sure. But Edwards really didn't end up with momentum in NH. In fact, he seemed to slump back into the also-rans by the end.
Of course, he'll do well in South Carolina regardless, and from there who knows where that'll carry him. But NH gave him no momentum.
It did give Dean a pulse. Maybe not much of one, but the "He's Dead, Jim" of Iowa is shown as premature.
Ok: only a faint pulse. But more momentum in NH than Edwards had. Any Mo Edwards gets will come in S-C
So who won the loony vote? Kucinich or Sharpton? Will either one get more votes than LaRouche?
Posted by: SJM at January 27, 2004 10:44 PM
Posted by: Declan at January 27, 2004 10:45 PM
What I recall of Dean's speech:
We have to "take care" of those rich people, tax them more than poor people, those big businesses, regulate them more than small businesses, those white and Asian people, put black and Hispanic people in front of them in line, and we have to stop treating different groups of people differently and dividing them!
Posted by: Mitch at January 27, 2004 10:46 PM
Actually thinking about it, I'll lay the first odds here: I'd say it's 50-50 that Kerry, rather than Edwards, wins South Carolina.
I'll make a bold prediction and say Kerry takes it, narrowly.
No question that Kerry is the frontrunner now with Edwards positioning himself as a strong potential VP candidate. The Dean campaign is trying to put a positive spin on things but this is a crushing loss considering where they were in the polls just two weeks ago. Dean's not finished but his campaign was banking heavily on winning Iowa and N.H. and it didn't happen.
Two contrasting dynamics will be at play now -- the urge among some Democrats to wrap up the race and focus on Bush, and the urge among everyone else in the race to focus their fire on Kerry (see Dean's speech tonight), which could drag him down the way it dragged Dean down pre-Iowa.
It's all as I have said. Listen to me, ye voters. Ahem and wot? Ye have little say. I am the predictor. Ye will be predicted.
Posted by: -Ed. at January 27, 2004 10:52 PM
I think Atrios is way off the mark here, still pumping Dean's viability based on the 1992 primaries. Clinton hadn't won a primary up to now, true, but he was a Southern boy headed into his stompin' grounds. Dean is a transplanted Manhattan liberal with a few sniffy remarks about the good ol' boys down yonder and how they to get their thinkin' straight.
Take it from a guy who lived in Alabama for a good spell: The boys don't cotton to some Yankee growling orders at them. Dean's going to have his hands full in the Sunbelt.
Posted by: Jeffersonian at January 27, 2004 10:53 PM
I think Dean still can't be written off at this point, mainly because he has a better organization nationally than any of the other Democratic candidates. Dean can still make inroads in places like California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, and other states which account for a sizable number of delegates, which would allow him to be a factor in brokered convention....
Posted by: Clay Ranck at January 27, 2004 11:01 PM
Dean will limp on for awhile, but it's apparent he's been mortally wounded by Iowa. Whether 3rd or 4th, Clark's showing is pathetic. Edwards wins in SC and it's a 2-man race with Kerry.
Posted by: HH at January 27, 2004 11:05 PM
New Hampshire just made this into a two-man race. Edwards can only climb back into this contest by decisively winning in South Carolina, otherwise he's out. Clark may have edged out Edwards for third, but he shot his wad in New Hampshire, while Edwards barely spent a week there. Embarassing for the General.
As for Dean, despite all the media reports and polling data the last few days, he never gained significant ground after his debacle in Iowa. I would expect to see his funding begin to flow to Kerry instead. Dean will turn his cannons exclusively on Kerry in the seven days between now and the first Super Tuesday, but without the sense of invincibility he had in 2003, he won't have a prayer.
Kerry - Edwards ticket by mid-March. Bet on it.
Posted by: Captain Ed at January 27, 2004 11:06 PM
Thanks for the link, Glenn.
I found the exit-polling analysis that people voting on the issues went for Dean by seven points, yet those guessing who could beat Bush chose Kerry by a whooping 32.
I just wish people would trust their own judgements, instead of buying into this odd notion that Sominexman is so "electable."
But the really disturbing part was CNN chief political analyst Bill Schneider's cynical assessment of those results:
"It was a choice between venting and winning," he concluded his piece. "And that's the race in New Hampshire."
Venting? Voting your conscience for president he brushes aside as venting?
Residency inside the beltway must provoke some sort of horrible disease.
" People are still talking (see the comments, and this Jeff Jarvis post) about a "brokered convention." Although it would be a political junkie's dream, it won't happen. This'll be settled in not much more than a month. And probably sooner."
Yah, what I said. In a triumph of hope over experience ('cause it would be so much fun), people talk about that every four years.
Ain't gonna happen. Conventions will remain boring and dreary.
to be honest, i don't even care who gets the democratic bid because this crowd is so totally unrepresentative of america today that it's frightening. you'd think by now the presidential race would have a little more scope than a (most likely) new england WASP vs. a texan WASP. i know that regardless of who becomes the dem. cand., i'm going to vote for HIM, since i'm sure as hell not voting for bush or any third party detractor. but i can't help but feel cheated out of any real democratic power as well as the omnipresent sexism that still quietly pervades this country in homes, in jobs and especially in politics. not to mention racism, classism, etc. fortunately i don't have to make any decisions about the primary since my 18th birthday is a scant month too late for my partaking. but for serious; kerry, dean, clark, edwards... is there really a difference?
Anyone who willingly has Teddy Kennedy do the intro at a victory celebration hasn't got a fucking clue as to what it takes to win the presidency.
I just got off the phone with my dad, who's more liberal than I am (Clark, Edwards, while I'm Lieberman, Edwards). We both agreed that the next 8 months will almost certainly be an exercise in wheel spinning.
I'm a Democrat, and I want to win. Bush has been a bad president, though he's done well on the war.
Clearly, though, New Hampshire failed to give the Democrats the most electable candidate.
Thanks a lot, you scarf wearing morons.
Posted by: SamAm at January 27, 2004 11:23 PM
I am a bit surprised Edwards did not do better. He spent a bunch of money, his favorables were sky high, and he was drawing enthusiastic crowds.
Perhaps in the end some voters were concerned about his lack of experience, but I also wonder if Dean's resurgence (or apparent resurgence) hurt Edwards. A lot of people wanted anyone but Dean and when it looked like he might come back and win it, the undecideds and leaners broke for Kerry figuring that at least he was better than Dean.
Posted by: JeffP at January 27, 2004 11:26 PM
My parents will be crushed that Kucinich lost again.
Dean's dead. Who'd uv thunk that a few weird grimaces and a screech would torpedo a candidate that was, according to the media, such a lock?
Posted by: Wonderduck at January 27, 2004 11:27 PM
I think that Clark tried to steal Kerry's thunder by timing his speech to start a few seconds after Kerry's. Unfortunately for Clark, it turns out that CNN had the sense to stay with Kerry's speech. What should really infuriate Clark is that CNN only switched away from Kerry when Edwards started his speech. It is telling that CNN wouldn't cut to Clark, considering the past relationship between the two.
Also, anyone know where I can find a transcript of Dean's speech. I want to give it the thorough fisking it deserves.
Gotta keep an eye on Edwards, who's the most gifted politician in the group. He's definitely got some of that Clinton magic.
His populist "us against them" schtick, however, is revolting. But that goes for them all except for Lieberman. What a bunch.
Posted by: Kel at January 27, 2004 11:29 PM
It just seems like the lot of them haven't been paying attention to electoral dynamics. I dunno, maybe the cultural difference is too great. Maybe people in New England really don't understand the rest of the country (even their fellow Democrats).
But past history suggests that the Kerry model hasn't been successful, while the Edwards one has. And the cliches, here, are true. Even Kerry's best selling point, his Vietnam service, has an obvious downside, in his post service conduct. So when your best trait is maybe, maybe a small net positive, well...
And Edwards isn't perfect. I wish he were closer to Lieberman in terms of policy. But jeez, I can't believe he wouldn't do better than Kerry in the general.
And where do the Dean people go? When Kerry loses, the claim that "insider Washington Democrats can't win" will look "true." So does Dean come back in 2008 even harder? Or does one of his surrogates?
Yeah, I'm a little bitter.
Posted by: SamAm at January 27, 2004 11:32 PM
Predicting the winner of a presidential nomination after two states make their choice is like predicting the winner of a game show before the contestents have even been selected. It's a tad premature.
You've still got forty-eight states, one commonwealth, and a few territories to go. It's still possible somebody will surprise us.
The question now becomes to what extent Dean goes negative, and to what extent negative campaigning affects the other candidates in the race. If Dean hits Kerry hard, do either Edwards or Clark benefit? Or do disenfranchised Dean supporters go to Kerry, thinking the other two are toast?
I think Dean goes negative fast and hard in South Carolina, but ends up sinking himself. Edwards -- with his positive campaigning -- continues to purchase politcal capital as a VP candidate with no negative baggage.
"We're going to do our best here and go on to the next state and the next state," Kucinich said while in Maine. "I haven't discounted the possibility of a surge in some of these other states."
What qualifies as a Kucinich surge? 2%?
Posted by: Captain Ed at January 27, 2004 11:37 PM
Dean suffered from overexposure, now Kerry will be under the eye. In this primary, it seems the more that is known about the candidate, the less they are liked. Look for Edwards to build momentum in the later primaries, even though he is (hack..spit..) a malpractice trial lawyer.
It's not over yet, people. The delegate count is still very close, so don't be writing Edwards or Dean off, yet.
Don't write anyone off, except maybe tin-foil hat wearing Kucinich and Sharpton.
Posted by: Alex F at January 27, 2004 11:54 PM
Clark could always run for Mayor of Dixville Notch. He'd be the early favorite.
Posted by: Joe Baby at January 28, 2004 12:00 AM
While I wouldn't write Dean off, I also wouldn't give him a very good chance.
He spent a ton of money and time in Iowa & New Hampshire. Iowa also is very liberal (at least the caucus goers are) and New Hampshire is next door to Vermont.
I can't see Dean doing very well in the South or rest of the Midwest or really, anywhere except the west coast.
Still, neither should Kerry, so maybe it's a wash.
Clark did okay in New Hampshire, but he also spent all his time there. He might do okay in the south, but probably not great.
Liberman has to be disappointed. He also spent all his time there, and did nothing.
Edwards could clean up in the south and midwest. But he just doesn't have much experience. That will always hurt him.
Posted by: Jeremy at January 28, 2004 12:07 AM
Margot: the only way you can get a candidate "representative" of America is if he's a transgendered bisexual polyracial jack-of-all-trades. That's the cold, hard reality.
Posted by: HH at January 28, 2004 12:13 AM
I love your blog. It is the best. Keep it up!
Re: NH primary, I am totaly blown by Dean's speech. It was so elegant that had anything like that been given in IA, then NH would have been his way to the nomination.
Now, I hope the blogs (including yours) and press (including NYT, the crown jewel) will dissect John F. Kerry's (JFK's) history of votes, stands, and flip-flops. You all gave Dean (and his elegant spouse, Dr. Dean) a third degree. It would be nice if you gave JFK at least a second degree.
I hope Dean wins. I really, really want him to win. Only he can bring the change in America as he said today.
Finally, I applaud Dr. Sullivan for his most wonderful analysis of NH. As usual, he is the crown jewel (along with you of course) of blogs.
Posted by: Ali Karim Bey at January 28, 2004 12:20 AM
Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that the two candidates who said they'd roll back all the tax cuts are the ones with the most disappointing results? I wrote about it on my blog tonight after I did my taxes but it just seems like it's more than coincidence that Dean and Gephardt are floundering. I think this may be fairly significant.
Dean wasn't as nutty as last time but this speech still give you the impression that he thinks he just won. And, then he says something about how the biggest loss for American under George W Bush has been the "loss of sense of community". Wow, it only took us 3 and a half years to lose our sense of community! It must not have been very strong to begin with. His rhetoric is still ridiculous.
I just hope Lieberman sticks it out as long as possible as a protest on behalf of Scoop Jackson Democrats.
The funniest line was Kucinich saying that he still had a chance because it's a 50 state race.
Folks, stop saying so and so's 'out' if he doesn't win this or place in such and such a position... These people aren't out until they've lost all - totally all - power to fundraise and/or cause trouble (or just threaten the country with a sliver of a chance they might get their satanic water-boy butts in the oval office)...
Posted by: ct at January 28, 2004 12:47 AM
Clinton was like Edwards pre-Iowa when he came in within 8 to win New Hampshire. Dean was supposed to win New Hampshire easily 10 days ago... and now he can't even get within single digits. Huge difference.
I agree with Eric Deamer that Dean's line about the loss of "a sense of community" is off base, especially because he started his list of other factors which could work against Bush with the loss of jobs. Shouldn't that be the point that Dem candidates are hammering the point home on? I thought the point was that the economy had been doing well, but that it was a so-called "jobless recovery."
Posted by: Sean M. at January 28, 2004 01:12 AM
The question is who'll be the first candidate to go negative on Kerry. Kerry isn't going to cruise to the nomination without a hard look at his negatives (if he does, Karl Rove will have a field day), but neither Dean nor Edwards can afford to be the hatchet man at this stage.
At the same time, I think Dean will be in the race until (unless?) one of the other candidates can eliminate him mathematically. Dean is still raising seven-figure sums of money from non-traditional sources, and holding campaign meetings in all 50 states; one way or another, the Democratic Party needs to capture that momentum.
Does anyone else take note that there's not a whole lot of diversity on TV when the Democrat race is covered?
Imagine if, in his second Inaugural speech, Richard Nixon had theorized that THIRTY-ONE YEARS in the future the Democratic Party would conduct two Presidential primaries in January 2004 and White Men would garner 99% of the vote. He'd have been called a "kook".
The Democrats may have a big tent, but all the performers are the same pale flavor as the last time the circus came 'round.
Dean is in a bad spot. His main hope may be for a strong showing from Edwards in the South to steal delegates from Kerry, and providing time to regroup. Other than that, he can only hope for Kerry to really screw up somehow.
It's a shame really. At this point I prefer Bush to any of the Dems --- but if Bush loses, I'd much rather have Dean running things than Kerry.
Posted by: James Nightshade at January 28, 2004 01:35 AM
Why, James? I feel the exact opposite. Dean, in my opinion, is a clod.
Kerry *can't* win. Period. Edwards is their only chance to make it a race, Here's why.
Synopsis - to win as a Democrat you better be handsome, or from the South. Better that you're both.
Sample snippet for lazy linkers:
"Once Democrats outside of his [Dean's] circle of True Believers started hearing them, the wiser heads said, "Holy Freaking Dukaki! Sacred Mother of Mondales! This feels good, we got this mouse in our pocket, but whacko-ing off with him, pleasant as may be for us to play with ourselves, ain't gonna get us a date at the inagural. We need to court somebody we can't see in the mirror every day."
Tim, I think Dean has a better chance of turning himself into a Clinton-style centrist than Kerry does.
And although I dislike Dean's crude and cynical way of using the Iraq war to position himself, I really really hate the "two Americas" populist rhetoric of Kerry.
That is the way I rationalize it anyway. Probably the real reason is that I lived in Massachusetts for several years and still have a habitual dislike toward Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
Posted by: James Nightshade at January 28, 2004 01:53 AM
Edwards is toast. Now he HAS to win South Carolina. If he can't win the state he was born in, he can't win anywhere. And he won't.
I never understood the excitement about Edwards to begin with. To me he looks like a snakesoil salesman, and his campaign is filled with pointless fluff and no substance.
Posted by: John D at January 28, 2004 02:17 AM
Actually, while the race may not be brokered at the convention, it will probably be brokered among the "super delegates" (the sitting democrat congresscritters (along with former Congressional leadership), sitting democrat governors, and former Presidents and VPs.)
Just shy of 20% of the total convention delegates (or 37% needed to actually secure the nomination) are totally uncommitted by the primary process.
Dean will beat Kerry. Bush's Feb 2003 budget shows 2008 federal debt that is $3.3 Trillion higher than what he indicated in Feb 2001. His next budget,in Feb 2004, will probably show a 2008 debt about $4 Trillion higher. That's roughly $74,000 when spread across the roughly 54 million middle class households.
In other words, either the Middle class baby boomer 401K/IRAs are toast (because their before tax assets will be taxed in the future at 60% plus to pay off Bush's IOUs on the Trust Funds ) or a lot of blue collar baby boomers are going to be dying early because their Social Security/Medicare accounts are toast. Bush's budget show that circa 2008 the Trust Funds will be holding his IOUS as "assets" but as Lawrence Lindsey noted, those IOUs are not "real assets". That's because the government can pay us back only if the government first takes the money from us in taxes.
This disaster is almost unrecoverable. Kerry has done nothing in the past three years to halt Bush. He's shooting off his mouth now, but he said and did little in 2001 and 2002. He wants to lead now -- but he was a US Senator and showed no leadership when leadership was needed. He wants us to trust him now -- but he has betrayed the trust of rank and file Democrats for the past three years by remaining silent. He warning us now --but failed to warn us three years ago when something might have been done by public protests. That's because some of his donors probably wanted to enjoy the Bush tax cuts as well -- including Kerry's wife.
Posted by: Don Williams at January 28, 2004 02:48 AM
Feh... Tell me again why Iowa and New Hampshire should have such a disproportional effect on the nominating process? Because it's always been done that way? Because we see two sets of results and want to divine the pulse of the rest of the country? Color me unimpressed that Kerry garnered a whopping six more delegates than Dean tonight.
I understand that there's a bounce involved here, and a managing of expectations. Still, I've never understood why we don't *start* with something like Super Tuesday, or two big states first. If we're so hellbent on creating momentum to shape the nomination, I wish we'd actually do it with meaningful stakes.
Posted by: Jeff at January 28, 2004 02:55 AM
All the candidates seem to think they won tonight.
Posted by: John Tabin at January 28, 2004 03:31 AM
Once again this election will boil down to a choice between horrible and worse.
Time to start a write-in campaign for Blair, McCain, or none-of-the-above.
Given a choice between putting aside their differences and meeting a common foe, and squabbling amongst themselves over a shrinking pie human beings will 9 times out of 10 choose squabbling. Most human beings would rather be king of a very small hill than a citizen of Everest. That whole "enemy of my enemy" thing, is a feat that most people including politicians are incapable of. The fact that Churchill, Stalin, and FDR did it was more a reflection on their extraordinary nature than the circumstances of the situation. In an earlier age, Europe afterall failed to unite to stop Napoleon and he really did himself in more than anything else. Politics and war can make strange bed fellows, but usually only if the people involved are smarter than the "average bear".
Wesley Clark is toast, and I don't see Howard Dean doing any better than Kerry in the south, after his "God, guns and gays" remark. My prediction is for a Kerry-Edwards ticket, which I very much doubt will be the walkover some in the GOP seem to imagine it will be.